I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal. Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

I don't know. I haven't noticed certain posters getting 'special' treatment, but I could be really oblivious to something obvious--I have noticed some posters seem better-liked than others, but that's impossible to avoid, as not all personalities click. Sometimes it *does* feel a little bit arbitrary, about which threads are considered beyond the scope of the forum. But by arbitrary, all I really mean is 'I can't always figure out why one thread was locked and another wasn't. I wonder if it's a case of everyone feeling other posters are more favoured (like situations where everyone's convinced their siblings is the favourite kid!) because there are so many people it just seems hard to keep track of who likes who, and who has their comments ignored, and so on.

I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal. Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

I think the general attitude of the management is that if we don't like it here we can leave. I'm not putting a value judgement on that either way.

It's simply a fact.

We post at the pleasure of Ehelldame and her mods.

But we, or I am talking about a change in the way things are. I agree that if you don't like the place, then sure. Go. But when you *like* the place and like the people there, only to notice it changing in an unpleasant and confusing way, should we all just leave without saying anything?

I disagree with that assessment. I like EHell. I don't want to leave because, for the most part, it's greatly enjoyable. Does that mean I'm honourbound to shut my mouth rather than raise a polite objection to certain practices? Or just to leave? That really seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

ETA I totally agree with tnpenguinbaby, especially about opening dialogue with the mods.

I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal. Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

I think the general attitude of the management is that if we don't like it here we can leave. I'm not putting a value judgement on that either way.

It's simply a fact.

We post at the pleasure of Ehelldame and her mods.

Yes, we can leave, you are right. However, I'd rather try to understand the "rules" and find out what is behind the favoritism that I (and obviously others) seem to feel is happening here, the reason is because we like it here and don't want to leave except as a last resort. I don't think Fluffycat's question was out of line or warranted a response of "If you don't like it here you can leave", either.

This thread was not locked without comment, so I don't see how that applies. I have no problem with not caring who was rude first but explicitly calling out one poster as rude, while ignoring other rude posts does imply that there are varying standards.

I know I'm a guest here. But its difficult to be a good guest when stated rules are applied inconsistently in front of everyone and one does not know for sure how to act or not act.

This thread was not locked without comment, so I don't see how that applies. I have no problem with not caring who was rude first but explicitly calling out one poster as rude, while ignoring other rude posts does imply that there are varying standards.

I know I'm a guest here. But its difficult to be a good guest when stated rules are applied inconsistently in front of everyone and one does not know for sure how to act or not act.

POD! Laciegirl called everyone "unethical", which is basically insulting everyone that thread but only Lady Pekoe gets smacked for calling Laciegirl on her comment? How is that in anyway ok?

I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal. Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

I think the general attitude of the management is that if we don't like it here we can leave. I'm not putting a value judgement on that either way.

It's simply a fact.

We post at the pleasure of Ehelldame and her mods.

But we, or I am talking about a change in the way things are. I agree that if you don't like the place, then sure. Go. But when you *like* the place and like the people there, only to notice it changing in an unpleasant and confusing way, should we all just leave without saying anything?

I disagree with that assessment. I like EHell. I don't want to leave because, for the most part, it's greatly enjoyable. Does that mean I'm honourbound to shut my mouth rather than raise a polite objection to certain practices? Or just to leave? That really seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

ETA I totally agree with tnpenguinbaby, especially about opening dialogue with the mods.

Should I be first to invoke Godwin's law? But really it is about an honest and open dialogue. Before any more damage is done to the reputation of the board.

Logged

ConsistencyIt's only a virtue if you're not a screwup - Demotivators(R)

That thread was deteriorating long before LadyPekoe posted and was rebuked.

I completely agree with FluffyCat. It is crystal clear some posters can be rude, annoying, instigate squabbles and *nothing* happens. It's equally crystal clear nothing happens because they continue to post without any breaks that would indicate their absence. Disagree with one of these posters? You will be gagged, banned either temporarily or permanently and the entire thread will disappear.

It is beyond frustrating to have posts disappear, entire threads disappear and posts be selectively edited without that editing being clearly identified. Multiple threads have been started asking for explanations for these kinds of actions and universally the answer has been "you don't know everything that's going on and don't question our authority" and the thread is either locked or gone.

Threads like this one are started because posters are sick and tired of the unequal treatment and are trying to initiate a meaningful dialogue between the posters and the mods so the forum can recover. The forums have deteriorated into subjects which no longer have any substatantive content. Most threads now are variations of "this clearly rude thing happened and I responded thusly. Was I rude too?"

I understand, as do all of us, that the mods are in charge. If things don't change for the positive, I'm concerned there may not be much left for them to moderate.

+1, especially to the bolded. It's a very unfortunate side-effect.

I'm also sometimes shocked by the snarkiness of some of the thread closing comments made by MOD's. Frequently, they come across more snide than any posts in the entire thread. It seems counter-productive.

Guys, I'm not sure that Audrey was saying that we *should* just put up with it or leave. I think she might have just been predicting the response this thread is likely to get. .

Thank-you. You are correct.

That's a fair enough prediction then. But honestly, for a board that prides itself on self-improvement, it would be disappointing to get that official response to a concern for the community without evidence of some forum self-reflection first.

That thread was deteriorating long before LadyPekoe posted and was rebuked.

But this is subjective. I've seen references, both in this thread and the one that got locked, to posters calling others unethical. But the only thing I recall was someone calling *actions* unethical, not people. To me, there's a big difference. Are you sure you're not trying to see things?

I realize this is a minority view, and I'm hardly brown-nosing, but I don't see this favoritism everyone else does. For the most part, the worst offenders I'm aware of who consistently pushed the envelope are gone.

There's still some people who do it, but there's nothing stopping you from calling them on it, as long as it doesn't ratchet up the dialog. I've done it and I'm still alive!

Obviously, I could be missing something, but if someone held a gun to my head and asked who the mod favorites are at e-hell, I wouldn't even have a clue what to say.

Perhaps I don't spend enough time on eHell or perhaps it's my general cluelessness but I haven't noticed any particular favouritism. I actually felt as though the 'dogpiling' trend has decreased a little lately. I was nervous to post for a while there but IME it had settled down a bit, so perhaps it just depends on the particular threads you are following at any time.

I will say that I have been surprised by how vehemently and bluntly some people will express themselves here. On occassion I have seen people saying things to others that I would consider frankly insulting IRL. However I don't think it is reasonable to expect the mods to read every single post on every single thread so I've always just assumed that perhaps the insultee didn't care enough to report it.

One final point - I know that I am probably more likely to interperet an ambiguous post as benign if it is posted by someone that I have seen many posts from and that in my experience is usually a polite and respectful poster. So perhaps the mods are the same - if they've seen someone post for 5 years and they have no history of rudeness they may be more likely to dismiss a post as an aberration, whereas if it is your second post ever...

That thread was deteriorating long before LadyPekoe posted and was rebuked.

But this is subjective. I've seen references, both in this thread and the one that got locked, to posters calling others unethical. But the only thing I recall was someone calling *actions* unethical, not people. To me, there's a big difference. Are you sure you're not trying to see things?

I realize this is a minority view, and I'm hardly brown-nosing, but I don't see this favoritism everyone else does. For the most part, the worst offenders I'm aware of who consistently pushed the envelope are gone.

There's still some people who do it, but there's nothing stopping you from calling them on it, as long as it doesn't ratchet up the dialog. I've done it and I'm still alive!

Obviously, I could be missing something, but if someone held a gun to my head and asked who the mod favorites are at e-hell, I wouldn't even have a clue what to say.

I think the charge of favoritism is being taken too literally. Favoritism could be accidental, or purposeful but based on other considrations than simple personal feelings.

For instance, there is a very popular forum I read (rather infrequently now) that has allowed the trolls to take over, despite blatant rules against trolling, because their controversial posts tend to gain the site more traffic. Its bad for the community of course, but good for business. I am not saying that is the problem here, it is simply an example of favoritism, or unfair moderation, that does not rely on personal feelings or friendships.